Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnh-hn | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone know if these glasses, or any other glasses, can be tried in-person and used on desktop? I'm legally blind, but have just enough vision to use a screen without a screen reader. The problem is I have to be about 6 inches from a 27 inch screen. I'm tall, and I'm almost bent in half to do it. It's been hell on my back and neck. I've only really made it work because I've modified so many things to get around it (i.e. customising Windows, Firefox, and so on).

The part that makes it so tough is monitor arms come in standard sizes and are nowhere near long enough or extend far enough for me to sit comfortably. My dad modified my desk for me years ago to mount a monitor arm on wooden blocks, but it means I can't move the monitor much.

Being able to wear glasses and ditch the monitor entirely would be a game changer for me. I know next to nothing about AR though, being as I assumed, perhaps wrongly, it isn't something that would work for me.

Edit: Thank you for the replies. It means a lot. I've got some options to explore here now thanks to you.

View on HN

I have a colleague at work who also has to get within 6" of the screen.

2 years ago I switched to a 55" 8k TV as my primary monitor.

While everyone was giving me the usual crap about it, this guy, when I showed him what it would look like with 400% Zoom, he went and bought one for himself at home.

He thanks me every few weeks, but still didn't dare to set one up in the office.

(ps I have mine standing on a normal height-adjustable table, so you wouldn't have to hunch at all)

Dude thanks for at least helping! And while he might not be comfortable enough to use it at work at least you were able to help set him up in his personal life. I had a colleague with a rare form of macular degeneration and this stuff is a game changer for him.

Precisely. The ideas here may not seem like much to some, but I am genuinely in awe of how much people are trying to help me solve this. I've had people contact me via the email in my profile offering help too. And I meant what I said in my original comment: fixing this would significantly improve my quality-of-life. That makes it difficult to convey how grateful I am for the suggestions.

This is an interesting suggestion. Like with most suggestions here, I have no idea if it would work or not, so I'm making a list of things to try.

One thing that would concern me a bit with this though is how I'd use my neck. To give an example, when sitting in front of my screen now, if I want to see the browser tabs at the top of my screen, then I have to tilt my head backwards to see them. But if I need to see the taskbar, I have to tilt my head down. It doesn't sound like much, but doing that all day rather than just moving your eyes instead adds to overall fatigue.

With your suggestion, I can't picture if that would still be required or not. Thanks for sharing the idea. I'll look into it.

I don't know if this will help you visualize it or not, but here's a photo of someone using a TV as a monitor on a desk

https://i.imgur.com/mjcqjfZ.jpeg

I use my 4K TV as a monitor (though from ~8ft away) and for me Windows' scaling (found under Display in Control Panel) allow me to easily read text from so far away

Maybe it could help you

This actually does help, thanks. It's given me a clearer idea of the scale of what it might look like to sit in front of it. From that picture, you can probably imagine what I mean about the neck movements.

The benefit of a big TV should be that you can move it farther out than the 6" you mentioned (and that the person is roughly sitting at), increase text size, but need fewer neck movements to take it all in — provided you can focus at bigger distances.

You are essentially keeping the same angular size, and by moving an 85" TV to 19" from your eyes, you get text to be sized just like your 27" at 6" (3 x 27" = 81").

Won't help with your neck issues though, since you'll have exactly the same issues.

The issue with the "keyboard in front of huge monitor" type of arrangement for people who need to get their face really, really close to the monitor is they have to lean far in and hunch over the keyboard, putting their arms in an uncomfortable position. Speaking from my own experience, this causes RSI problems fairly quickly. And the keyboard can't be moved farther back to allow the person's arms to be in a more natural position because the base of the TV or monitor blocks the way.

A monitor arm of the right length and height lets you sit so that the monitor is close to your face, floating at or beyond the front edge of the table, and the keyboard is physically behind the monitor, letting your arms be in a more natural position for typing.

What’s going on with that guy’s left hand? Is this some kind of fake computer-generated image?

This image has been around loooong before AI images.

It looks like he is mid-typing like he just slammed the enter key. Seen my grandpa make the exact same move.

His hand is flat, slightly tipped up, hovering over the keyboard.

If one needs to use 55" 8K TV at 400% zoom, I suggest getting a 55" 4K TV and keeping it at 200% zoom — it's much cheaper and easier to drive with any iGPU.

There are also 55" monitors, but they'll likely be more expensive but behave much better.

I think where display setups will become really interesting is when we start seeing more integration with complex optical systems, without requiring that to be strapped to your face.

I'm aware of Brelyon as one example that's starting to spill into the consumer space. Repurposing the optical exploits that enable AR/VR in a desktop format IMO is going to be a key path to supporting novel approaches to display systems that will be actually desirable to use, and also adaptable to differing physiology.

Glasses like these put the screen at a focal distance further than a monitor, closer to TV distance. Optics wise it’s basically the same as VR, if a VR headset is easier to try.

If your corrected vision needs stuff 6” away, don’t expect AR or VR to be a solution with current optics

This is what I've been worried about. I have lens implants so I already have a fixed focus as well. The combination of the two would likely be a problem.

In a VR headset the virtual screen distance is set by the distance of the microdisplay from the lens in the headset.

It's not crazy to think you could move the microdisplay position and get a virtual display at 6". There might be other optical consequences (aberrations, change in viewable area) but in principle it can work.

I'd be open to trying something like this. It might be the kind of simple solution that would work for me.

The microdisplays are usually fixed in place (and sometimes the display and optics are a single package), so it would likely be a bespoke solution.

a few AR glasses come with adjustable knobs for nearsighted people. So, not all of them are fixed distance.

Some ar glasses support adjustable focus, and others support custom prescription lenses.

I just returned the Virtue Pro. I got custom lenses too. The edge/corners were still blurry. With custom lenses I would have preferred fixed focal.

You can get a free trial of an Apple Vision Pro at an Apple Store.

Even if you have absolutely no intention of ever buying one it would give you a free and easy way to find out if a headset type device would work well with your vision or just be totally incompatible.

The pair I have (original xReal Air) include a glass insert that can be ground to your prescription. It's a thin piece of glass, I don't know exactly what kind of prescription can be put onto them, but it might be helpful.

That is usually for very low prescriptions. Judging by the photos, I don't think you can use those blanks for much more than -2.

some AR glasses come with built in correction up to -5.00. Beyond that, they recommend correction lens insert, so it can work for more. The built-in correction does not do astigmatism, that will require prescription insert too.

I'm around -6 and was able to get an insert for my VR headset. There are third parties who partner with eyeglass lens manufacturers to make them for most headsets.

possibly this is rather a template to cut a.preacription lens to the right size, just like glasses come with templates for the prescription lenses. the prescription lenses are shipped in a large round shape, and then cut to match the template.

It sounds like we have a similar situation. I've been wondering if these kinds of glasses would work for me but it just seems like such a hassle to order a pair to try just to end up returning them if they don't work. I wish they were sold in a store that I could just walk into and try them for a minute.

FWIW, I use a monitor arm that's mounted on the front left side of my desk (my dad also modified my desk so this would work) so I can pull it as close as I need. It does mean I can't push it back to a normal monitor distance but I'm the only one using my PC so that's not a problem. Oddly enough, I recently got cataract surgery so now I have a lens that makes me focus further away, but now text is too small to read at that distance so I have to use readers to focus closer and use the arm.. seems a little silly but it mostly works out.

  >  I wish they were sold in a store that I could just walk into and try them for a minute.

I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist. Not even just with AR or VR but with lots of products. I thought that early on in the transition to more online purchasing that it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase. There always seemed to be a weird perverse incentive where for a given store their online prices would be cheaper than those in store. Combined with wider selection of sizes and styles, it felt weird not to buy online, especially if you were not in a major city. Employees would even tell you this! Themselves being unable to just handle the "online" sale for you (baffling...). Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers.

Being a lanky kinda guy I could never find clothes in my sizes in store but it was still quite helpful to see the difference between certain materials and would often lead to buying a more expensive version than another. Without the stores, it just seems to make a market of lemons[0], and I think that's kinda apt given general consumer frustration. You can't rely on reviews and you can't rely on images or even product descriptions...

How the fuck am I supposed to know what I'm buying?

My hypothesis is that some bean counters saw that sales were plummeting in stores and concluded that they should then close them. Having the inability to recognize that the purpose of the store had changed, despite them likely using the stores in the new fashion themselves. Hard to make effective decisions if the only viewpoint you have is that of a spreadsheet...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Several other factors probably pushing the bean counters:

  * Real estate in high-traffic areas, especially in malls (do those still exist?) can be extremely expensive.
  * With retail stores, shoplifting is the business's problem, after the switch to ecommerce, a lot of theft is shifted to being the customer's problem (porch pirates)
  * Customer service staff in the store are likely more expensive than outsourcing call centers and now AI is well on the way to cutting out most of those jobs.

So while I doubt they completely overlooked the value of a physical presence, they probably calculated that it's an acceptable tradeoff.

I think Apple does a really good job at blending their physical stores and their online business into a very seamless experience. Not many companies can operate at that level of excellence. Although I have many complaints about Apple's business practices, however, their retail stores and customer service experience are not among them.

I'm quite aware that stores cost money. I'm not sure why you'd think I didn't.

I agree that Apple is doing it right and is kinda what I'm talking about. They do focus on the experience even though I'm sure most sales translate to online sales. They do understand that the physical presence generates many of these sales. It's not trivial to measure like direct sales but it is measurable.

I'll admit Apple has an advantage that it isn't a franchise (pretty sure?). But that doesn't mean the other companies couldn't adapt to the new environment. But clearly a lot of them failed due to this. The experience still matters to customers but if they don't have many choices they still gotta do what they gotta do

One thing I've noticed is that some stores are, as you ponder, indeed franchises.

In some franchises, store owners get a vote on change. They also have no inventive or desire to be a mere showcase for purchases happening elsewhere, such as online.

Combine this with a sometimes contracted inability for the company to "compete" with franchises, and you get some very weird behaviour.

And the of course, as people and politics are involved, you may see non-optimal, status quo results from votes.

It's only really been 15 years, since retailers have really seen a notable dive in store sales, and the last 5 years being the most harsh.

Meatspace speed is slow. Most of the world's behaviour is ossified compared to people on HN.

In other words, the Internet is fairly new. I think eventuality we'll see some stabilization here, over the next 10 years.

An example...

Used to be, before opening trade with China, that most cultery was made in the US. There were in fact 4 or 5 main manufacturers of cutlery.

Once the cheap stuff came in, this all collapsed. All of them shut or went bankrupt.

Yet out of the ashes one emerged, and I think a second now. The market was in such turmoil, sales collapsed so fast, that they all weakened at once.

But at least one can exist.

My point is, we're in this period of chaos now. It'll sort out I think.

Apple makes gobsmack amount of profit from both devices and gambling apps(they don't do games) that easily cover costs of demo units. It'll be harder if you only sell only one type of fancy low-volume gadget at $499.

1) Why does Apple make "gobsmack amount(s) of profit"? Perhaps there's a strategy that leads to this. I believe the memes version is "Says 'because they're rich'; refuses to elaborate; leaves"

2) My example was clothing. I certainly think this makes sense as a setting in such an environment. Let you look and try. Directly sell most common sizes, transfer to online purchase for others. You can even have employees measure customers to get the right fits! Now you could even do the virtual tryons. This is very different than racks of clothes.

3) I think you forgot about stores like Sharper Image, Electronics Boutique, or Brookstone. Customers frequently would go into these stores to just see all the random gadgets and stuff. I can certainly remember going into Brookstone dozens of times yet not actually buying anything. Thing is, what these stores were good at was advertising products. But they were terrible at selling them because you could always find the same things somewhere else for cheaper, like Sears.

Like I've said, the value of many of the physical stores was not just in direct sales. That was a fine metric in the old days, but things changed and so did many other things. My original comment was a claim that a myopic view was applied, hyper focusing on the limited direct sales metric. But coke doesn't advertise to make you aware of coke nor do car companies advertise to make you aware of cars. They do things differently because their size and markets are different.

My point of a lemon market is that with the loss of ability to physically scrutinize products, you cannot tell the difference between a lemon or a peach. What I didn't say, is that this incentivizes more dark patterns like making returns difficult. Part of Amazon's quick adoption was free returns, making the downside of buying a lemon low, only costing you time. But the idea of tricking you into buying something, especially with a subscription, and making you live with the purchase sounds more like the strategy of an infomercial penis pill scam, not a blue chip business.

This isn't "if you run into assholes all day" situation, but I think it should be more widely recognized that Apple is slowly regressing into a casino franchise. They sell slot machines that also support phone and media consumption, and keep fraction of sales made on slot machines.

I don't deny that about Apple[0], but that seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275

> ...it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase.

You have all the pieces but you're not putting them together.

Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist - rent, rates, staffing, etc. - and that's why they can't compete on price with online stores, which can just be giant warehouses with shipping. The online arms of some physical stores can benefit from the same economies as totally online businesses, leading to cheaper prices online even for companies with a physical presence.

How can a physical shop make any money if they are just treated as a gallery for browsing before the buyer heads to Amazon to get the item 10% cheaper? It's not bean counting, it's basic economics.

How the fuck are you supposed to know what you're buying, indeed - patronise physical businesses because you recognise the value in their existence, and understand that that's worth paying an additional premium for.

  > Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist

I understand this. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I thought it was a pretty obvious thing...

Because you said this:

> I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist.

and if you understand that real stores are more expensive to run than online stores, then the rest seems obvious?

Places like that did exist in the past - they were the places we had to go to buy things. Online prices are lower so people bought online instead and drove most of them out of business.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Best Buy is actually pretty good these days. If you have a Micro Center in your area, they're even better. Both will price match Amazon.

XREAL is on Amazon, and their return policy is pretty good.

Not an answer to your question, but re: monitor arms.. mine can be pulled out far enough it would touch my face. It mounts into a grommet drilled into my desk. I assume there's other reasons this isn't workable for you, but if it's for lack of finding a suitable arm, let me know and I'll find a link for you.

My other recommendation would be to consider a standing desk. Even if you prefer to use it sitting, you can tweak the desktop height to your liking and help mitigate the posture issue.

That's kind of you to offer, and I'd appreciate that if you wouldn't mind. I have seen some that are a bit longer, but the height is too low for them to be of use.

Happy to (hopefully) help. I have the Fully Jarvis monitor arm[0]. But it looks like you can find substantially more options here[1] from Uplift, some of which might have better range.

Back to the Jarvis, though: see how the photos of it show the arm in a typical "bent knee" shape? You can totally use it with both halves of the arm pointed in the same direction. I just did a quick measurement on mine and each of the arms is about 25 cm long, and they're fixed at a ~45° angle. So if you center its mount on your desk, you should be able to bring the monitor around[2] 35 cm closer to your face and still retain a lot of height adjustment (~34 to ~50, as measured from your desktop to the center of the display).

If you go this route (and your desk doesn't have an existing grommet hole you can use), they sell a drill bit to bore one in the right diameter.

[0]: https://store.hermanmiller.com/office-furniture-desk-accesso...

[1]: https://www.upliftdesk.com/desk-accessories/monitor-arms/

[2]: cos(45°)*50cm

If you don't mind having a "personalized" desk, arms that are meant to / able to go through the grommet often just have two (large) bolts. You could pretty easily drill through the middle of a desk and mount it at any distance.

I have the dual version of this, which they don't seem to sell any more: https://www.upliftdesk.com/crestview-single-monitor-arm-by-u... but if you look at the "all components" image, you can see the steel plates and bolts that I use to attach mine - the bolts aren't part of the bent black thing, they work with that or either of the shiny steel plates. Those both fit within a grommet hole (the large circular holes in desks) with bit of free movement to adjust it, and the bottom of the "stand" is completely flat so it could very easily go anywhere - you put the plate under the desk, stick the bolts through it + through the desk hole, and they go into threaded holes on the underside of the stand.

Some monitor arms are only meant to clamp onto the edge of a desk, and you won't be able to do this - I'd probably avoid those in this case tbh.

(I've probably failed to adequately describe it - I can take pictures or draw something out if you'd like. It's not complicated, it's just... there are not many similar things that I can point to as a comparison that most people have at hand)

I have an uplift arm and while I'm not at my desk right now, it's height adjustable and I can get it pretty close to my face (without sacrificing the height adjustment) - I have both the range and the crestview (Upgraded when I got a bigger monitor).

I'm not the person you replied to, but if you get a monitor arm made for an ultra-wide monitor, it will be longer and taller than most.

I use this one myself: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00B21TLQU

It can go far taller than I need it to, and the length of the arm itself should be enough that, positioned well, I imagine you could get it situated however you wanted.

This is a really good idea. And the "Measurements" image does a good job showing the exact ranges of motion it has. Looks like it can bring the display 16" (~40cm) towards you.

Thanks to both of you for the suggestions. I should've asked about this ages ago.

Hope it helps! Good luck.

You might also look at arms that use a vertical post with a horizontal arm coming off of it, rather than the gas spring height adjustment. They can come in a variety of heights, I think mainly because the systems are designed to allow multiple rows of screens (like a big 3x2 grid).

Off the top of my head, I know I've seen this for Knoll Sapper, which the PDF brochure (linked below) says has posts up to 32" high. Not sure if the 17" horizontal extension is enough for you, though you could also drill a hole in a desk and mount the post further forward instead of clamping on the back. Or heck, clamp it on the side or front.

See page 7 here: https://www.knoll.com/document/1352941326370/Copy%20of%20Sap...

Another option: you can buy a $40 monitor arm (they're all pretty good in my experience) on Amazon and mount it in the front of the desk to the left or right side and then swing it into position in the middle anywhere, even feet in front of the desk.

I have very high myopia (over -10) and share your concerns. I really wish these things were designed to cater to people for whom alternate display tech would actually simplify our lives.

So far I haven't seen anything that can deal with more than -8, and getting a custom prescription is usually prohibitively expensive. I can wear contacts to offset things somewhat, but they just cause added eyestrain.

I know what you mean. I can't help but wonder what it would take to make a pair of these. The hardware requirements for low-vision users would be lower, as we wouldn't need things like ultra high definition displays.

It's not too difficult to actually assemble - you just need some displays, a display driver, and the optics - but getting optics fabricated to meet your requirements might be challenging.

It is too difficult to assemble precisely for that reason.

The assembly is easy: the part sourcing less so ;-)

I think custom prescriptions for the xreal air 1 are around $80: https://vroptician.com/prescription-lens-inserts/nreal-air

Which I could see that being a deal breaker, but maybe it's lower than you thought

With import tax to the EU, yeah, it's a deal breaker. Even from the UK. Also, that site only has lenses for the first gen, and above -10 there's a surcharge of EUR 70.

I pay more for eyeglasses than for a Quest 3, so... I don't want to double that.

There is no import tax for the UK. I paid £60 in total for my lenses from official partner HONSVR. There are cheaper options on AliExpress.

No, but there is from the UK to the EU, thanks to Brexit.

HONSVR is a Chinese company shipping from China. If they are attracting Brexit charges they are doing something wrong. I guess it might be different for XREAL if they use UK warehouses.

I had soemthing like -9.50, but had LASIK, and now I can't focus on anything less than eight or so inches away. I have never tried AR glasses or a VR headset, would they work?

They should work, because they are at infinity in your eyes' perspective.

Virtue One's prescription insert is $100.

Disclaimer: the following is bad medical advice, do not follow.

VR/AR/MR headsets aren't precisely focused at infinity, it's usually 10ft or so. They also have lower resolution than human eyes(~60 px/deg or 1MOA) while at it. This combined means you don't need full correction, I personally use -3 for both eyes, and it seem to work for me in VR.

YMMV.

Just to chime in with another alternative - if you're open to using Linux, you might want to look into Viewport Panning with X11 [0].

It allows you to setup a larger virtual desktop that you can then pan around. Instead of moving your head around, you could instead just shift the viewport. Might be more convenient than a larger screen and/or monitor arms assuming you also setup zoom/display scaling.

By default, you pan by moving the mouse to an edge, but iirc you can setup key bindings and/or gestures.

[0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Config/Resolution#Panning_viewport

Great replies here already. Just piggybacking on the monitor arms: I have mounted mine to the wall. If this is an option for you, you can mount them at a good height on the wall and extend it to bring the screen closer.

Something you can consider are "dentist office screen mounts". They're what they seem like, arms like you'd see at a dentist office/hospital that swings around an entire room, to hold a light or screen. See this example Amazon listing for one that mounts to a wall with a 5foot swing area: https://www.amazon.com/DW630-1218-Long-Articulated-Adjustabl...

Ive mounted monitor arms to the front of the desk, rather than the back, and extended them out toward me for a somewhat similar situation. Bluetooth keyboard goes in my lap, thumb ball mouse goes on my arm rest. I can extend the monitor about 2.5 feet toward my face in this way. Hope it helps

I have a co-worker who is similar, needs to be about 3-4 inches from the screen. He had his monitor die, a 15" LCD, and the guys in IT 'did him a favor" and upgraded him to a 27" screen. He lasted all of an hour. Told IT it'll never work and they were confused until the saw and understood his use case.

I thought about these glasses, too, when I tore and detached my retina. With the surgery they drained me eye and my focal distance was initially maybe 1cm, and as my eye refilled the focal distance grew. At the time I wondered if sometime like Google Glass would work for me. I feel like there could be a lot of applications for these if they'll work with such short focal lengths.

What if you built a wheeled carriage to go over your desk?

Something made of precisely cut 2x4 lumber or 2040 frames, assembled like a whiteboard frame but have just a single beam where the board would be. Then the pole of monitor arm can be bolted onto the beam to hang upside down.

Once assembled, the whole thing can be rolled in and up to the front edge of the desk, right up to your face. If someone else needs to use your computer, the carriage can probably be moved back towards the wall.

The reason why display arms extend only so far is because a long cantilevered weight love to wreck the base. The desk top is going to break if it's too far out. So stretching the arm is probably no go.

Or you can get this thing called an "office chair". The overpaid tech bros here prefer names like Aeron, Embody, and Mirra. Some execs swear by their Eames too.

GP needs to have display right up his face. Chairs don't solve that problem.

> " ...I have to be about 6 inches from a 27 inch screen. I'm tall, and I'm almost bent in half to do it ... The part that makes it so tough is monitor arms come in standard sizes and are nowhere near long enough or extend far enough for me to sit comfortably ... "

Google for "long reach" monitor arms; some models have a reach of 30 to 40+ inches. They're not exactly cheap since they come from ergonomics vendors but they allow you to bring a large monitor as close to your face as you like and, depending on the model, clamp to a table like a standard monitor arm. I've had various models of them for a couple of decades now.

I have a pair of these Xreal (formerly Nreal) glasses, and I find text too unclear from the plastic optics, too full of halo/fringe (think: cheap VR headset, like trying to work on a Quest 2), and the OLED's pixel arrangement too odd for any serious work use. It's just about good enough for light gaming and movie consumption, but even gaming is a strain for me. They also make me sleepy! They do accept some prescription lenses inserted in front of the viewports, and include a blank you can have cut, but I haven't used them. I have good close-up vision with some mild, untreated astigmatism.

You can use them just as a monitor/without AR - some require a special USB-C to DP cable if you don't have native USB-C video out (or Thunderbolt), but they are a bit blurry compared to normal screens for me. I'm not sure how well they'd work for you.

The other problem is they aren't quite up against your eyes the way VR headsets are. They project a screen that appears to be quite far away. I imagine you could lower the resolution though, and it might look closer.

Thanks for this. I definitely would lower the resolution if I could as I do the same thing with my screen. The only complication with that might be that in addition I also use: https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/windows_10_dpi_fix....

Newer models, like the One and One Pro, allow you to set the distance. I think the minimum is 1.5m.

A PC is actually the best way to use xreal imo. The android experience is clunky... But I'm old and use mouse and keyboard for everything

Regarding monitor arms, what if you put a regular monitor straight in your face and use a split keyboard (like Ergodox) on the sides?

I dont know if I missed someone else saying it but have you tried the Apple Vision?

The screens are a few inches from your eyes.

I also wonder how AR glasses work with myopia. Could they potentialy worsen it? Need to dig out some research.

a) You can always get them, try them, and return them in the given period if you don't like them. That's what I did with these same glasses and I didn't get any crap about it

b) There are monitor arms that extend quite far, and are easy to install. I use this one: https://a.co/d/fV5llce. Granted I don't keep it 6" away from my face and my desk is a bit too big for that, but I could get it really close if I wanted and my desk was smaller.

There are fairly long arms which any vesa mount monitor can be attached to. This is no option for you?

The specific company I would point to is Ergotron. In the worst case you can just daisy-chain extra arm extensions as long as it's within the total weight limit, and I'm 100% confident after using the same monitor arms for years that the result would be reasonably stable.

There used to be also some Amazon Basics branded ones that are also produced by Ergotron (or the same factory that produces Ergotron - not sure). They were 100% compatible, and looked/functioned the same for quarter of the price.

Pardon my ignorance, but why not you just wear glasses?

if you are based in the USA, most stores have 30 day return policies. perhaps order them, try at home, and return if you they arent a fit for your situation

I'm in the UK, but the same idea applies, you're right. I'm just hoping there is a way to do it in-person as I might need to try quite a few types to get something that works.

My wife uses Klarna to order multiple items, pay with Klarna (delayed payment) and then only pay for what is not sent back. Usually you have few weeks? to try the items, even though it's usually clothes stores that allow Klarna payment.

Since you're in Europe, Klarna might work there.

Basically all XR devices put the focal plane at between 0.5 and 1m away. It’s a very very complicated reason why, but this is unlikely to change for a very long time.

Huh? I've always seen numbers larger than that

Xreal claims

> To mitigate this, the industry usually maintains the VID at over 1 meter; for instance, Apple's Vision Pro employs a distance of 1.1m, Meta Quest 3 sits at 1.25m, and Hololens boasts 2m.

https://us.shop.xreal.com/blogs/buying-guide/prescription-le...

Though strangely they don't give a number their for their own devices.

The article claims the focal plane on the xreal glasses is 10 feet (roughly 3m).

Can you point to something to learn more about this?

The article says his one is 10 feet (3m).

Why? I mean, can't you dial it in and out if you weren't folding the path and really needed that feature?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com